Welcome God!

Home | TOC | My Testimony | Questions About God | About the Big Guy in the Sky | Pantheism | Truth | Fun Fun Fun | God Simulating | Creationism and Evolutionism | 'Common Notions' | q

God is all there is to think about. And God is all there is that does the thinking!


Thursday, July 31, 2014


We tend to think of God only in positives. Indeed, we tend to think of God as positively perfect. This naturally reinforces our own good feelings about ourselves, since we are also God.  We each believe this, that we are God, on the most primitive unconscious level.  And it is true. But when we view God in only positive superlatives, we imagine a distorted view of God.  And we flatter our inmost self, and present our conscious self with a distorted view of that self.    

It is more difficult to imagine the negative aspects of God, (who is all things,) since these must, on some level of unconsciousness, be understood as negative aspects of our self.  Thus, to admit that God is also responsible for the evil in the world, as a being responsible for all things, we must admit that we ourselves, being God,  are also responsible for this evil. Externalizing this responsibility, even to creating instead an alternative, external personage, a devil, and making it responsible for all evil, is one way out of our taking this personal responsibility.  When we deny that God is responsible for the evil in the world, we are absolving our own unconscious self.  Yet this evil is part of the world's perfection. 

This also works the other way.  It may be easy for us to admit to our human failings, but difficult to admit that God has these same failings.  That is because, on some level of the unconscious, we regard human failings as mere failings of appearance, or of circumstance,  and not the essential failings that they are.  Unconsciously, at the deepest level, since we are each God,  we regard ourselves as infallible, and perfect.  Thus, it is always a source of dissonance when our perfect plans, which after all always originate from, or always seem to originate from, or at the least always gain the approval , from our 'perfect' unconscious selves,  go awry.   Fallible appearance conflicts with perfect essence.

 This all arises from our imperfect understanding of perfect.  We tend to understand perfect as perfect in an appearance, that is, in the limited aspects which we can appreciate, rather in the complete and total essence which is truly required for something to be truly perfect. Thus, what is truly perfect may have the appearance of imperfection in our limited perspective.  That is we would judge what is truly perfect to be imperfect.  And conversely, we would judge what had the appearance of perfection to our limited perspective, yet which was truly imperfect, as perfect.  We would judge the perfect as imperfect, and the imperfect as perfect. 

Further, that which was truly perfect, such as God, we would imagine as perfect according to our limited imagining, but not according to the totality of truth.  But since a perfect God in essence would appear imperfect to that imagining, so imagining God as perfect in that limited sense implies the imagining of a God who is not truly perfect.  By imagining God to conform to our image of perfection, we result in a distorted image of a God who is imperfect.  

We think God as perfect.  We say God is perfect.  But a God conforming to our image of perfection would be imperfect.

 Of course, we cannot admit that this imagined God is imperfect.  We imagine our image of God is perfect, despite the fact that this image no longer corresponds to reality, the truly perfect God.  This results in idolatry, the worship of our imagining, rather than the true God.

Consider too that we, and our world, are imperfect, (even to our imperfect perceptions,) and therefore what we perceive, and conceive, as perfect is also actually imperfect.  But this imperfection is an aspect of perfection.  For consider, if everything had the seeming of perfection, the world would be maddeningly imperfect indeed.  Yet, this is what heaven is often imagined to be, a place terribly imperfect in essence because it was perfect according to our imperfect judgment.   

We imagine a perfect God without negative aspects.   We are thus at a loss to explain the darker aspects the of reality that is God's creation, which are equally necessary to its perfection.  It is the perfect creation of a perfect God, imperfect as it is. And imperfect as God is.

Of course, none of this means we must not cultivate our garden, in this best of all possible worlds. Nor does it mean we should not strive to improve it.

9:38 pm est

Monday, June 30, 2014

Ethics without God

To those who say that God, a God,  is necessary for the development of a moral, or ethical individual, the Chinese present numerous counter examples. The Chinese have developed a cultural ethic without the belief in monotheism. 

 This does not imply the absence of belief systems among the Chinese: 

"The largest group of religious traditions is the Chinese folk religion, which overlaps with Taoism, and describes the worship of the shen, a term describing local deities, heroes and ancestors and figures from Chinese mythology."...

Taoism dates back to the sage Laozi  in 6th century BCE China, and refers to a variety of related philosophical and religious concepts, of which 'non-action' and spontaneity might be considered the most important. Taoism, Daojiao, '(The) Way Teach(ing),' venerates no particular deity.

..." According to a survey conducted in 2010, hundreds of millions of people practice some kind of Chinese folk religions and Taoism; of these 754 million (56.2%) people practice Chinese ancestral veneration, only 215 million (16%) believing in the existence of ancestral shen." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_China

Shen*: (god, diety, spirit, mind)  seems  to be the term closest to 'God,' though no compound containing it seems to refer to 'The God'  The combined form tianshen, (tian: heaven, sky, nature, god)  yields "sky spirits."   There is also zhu: owner, master, God;  zhenzhu: true master,  tianzhu:  heavenly master.  (My guess is that the use of zhu as representing 'God,' is a relatively recent development, dating to the arrival of Christian missionaries in China in the 16th century.)  The very fact that there is no particular definitive term (one wouldn't refer to one's landlord as 'God,' ) suggests the concept of a monotheistic God was not as important in Chinese culture as in the West.  That is to say, the concept a monotheistic God was not, and is not, central to Chinese cultural and ethical development.  

What does seem to be important is the role of exemplar.  Role models are important, and numerous:  Parents, especially during the formative years, the rulers, and the wealthy, in the present, and in the past, the aristocracy.  Setting examples for others is a primary aspect of their leadership. They are thus not only expected to preach virtues, but to practice them in their daily lives.  

These role models do not exist in a vacuum, but in the context of a moral culture going back thousands of years.   Deities, heroes, ancestors, especially ones own ancestors, and figures from Chinese mythology all provide models.  But central to the development of this culture was the role of ancient sages, men who not only taught virtues, handing  down descriptions, cases of ethical dealing with various situations,  but also lived according to those virtues.   

The most important of these ancient sages was Confucius.  Confucius (Kongzi, or Kong Fuzi,) is thought to have been born in 551 BC.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius.  He was born to minor aristocracy, in the state of Lu, in northeast China, in what is now Shandong Province.  While he grew up in poverty, he gained reputation through his teachings of the value of proper conduct and righteousness, as well as for his practice of these virtues. Eventually, these values were recognized as useful by the ruling families of Lu, and he gained appointments and rose in the affairs of his state.  Seeking to strengthen the position of the ruling Duke of Lu over his hereditary vassals, he made enemies.  His successes were incomplete.  He went into exile at age 54, journeying about the neighboring kingdoms, expounding his teachings.  He returned to Lu when he was 68, where he spent his last years teaching to his disciples.

" One of the deepest teachings of Confucius may have been the superiority of personal exemplification over explicit rules of behavior. His moral teachings emphasized self-cultivation, emulation of moral exemplars, and the attainment of skilled judgment rather than knowledge of rules"...." His teachings rarely rely on reasoned argument and ethical ideals and methods are conveyed more indirectly, through allusion, innuendo, and even tautology.  His teachings require examination and context in order to be understood. " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confucius

Confucius was, and in many respects still is, the model role model.  His importance rather belies his relatively modest biography.  Indeed, he is today  an object not only of emulation, but veneration.  Allowances, however, are now made for his place and time, and the importance he placed on ritual and in preserving the feudal order he was a part of is less emphasized. (Although he may have been radical in this, pushing the idea of rulers who would "succeed to power on the basis of their moral merits instead of lineage.")  However, his ethical teachings are still held in great respect, and widely practiced.  These are based three linked ideas: li  doing the proper thing at the proper time, yi, the idea of reciprocity:  "What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.  " and doing what is ethically best in a given situation, and ren, consisting of five virtues:  seriousness, generosity, sincerity, diligence and kindness. In order to properly act on these principles, the inner self must be cultivated.  Virtuous and sincere behavior begins with knowledge.  His major work, "The Analects," is prefaced with the Chinese character for 'study.'

An ethical culture, with an idea of goodness, righteousness, and propriety, existed prior to the development of monotheism.  It also exists in contemporary Chinese culture.


*Transliterations of  Chinese characters into Roman characters is problematic.  Although efforts to represent Chinese characters in Roman characters go back hundreds of years, it was really only in the 1950's that the modern  hanyu pinyin system was established. It has undergone several modifications since.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin It is especially inexact without the symbols for the  tones of the Chinese vowels, which typical fonts do not render.  For example,  'shen' has 4 different pronunciations.  In pinyin, it can have any of four different tonal symbols over the e.  Each tonal symbol is a different pronunciation and a different word, with a different meaning.  'Shen'  can represent fourteen or so different characters, each different words, with meaning ranging from  deep and profound to explain, from god and spirit to ooze to reach and to kidney and to other meanings, depending on the pronunciation and character.   

8:45 pm est

Saturday, May 31, 2014

Consequences of the Ordering of Good and God

You are God.  Since You are God, if you believe in God, but you do not believe He is you, and you believe He is external to you, all morality either originates in, or is refracted by, this external image of the self. 


All morality thus comes from this externalized image of the self. This is a source of confusion, for it is an externalization of that which is in fact internal.  (Even those for whom no coherent image is formed, for instance Atheists, there is a projection onto the exterior and back again.)  Thus, it has the appearance of objectivity, when in fact it is purely subjective.  (Really it is you, doing what you want.)


This is not to imply that moral beliefs are not in some sense universal, but since they are subjective, they can only be poorly described objectively.  Thus when we try to say why this is good or why that is bad we are often at a loss for words, and when we are not, words often slide aside from the point we are trying to make.  This is because words are blunt instruments when focused on the unconscious operations of the brain. In particular, they are really only designed to describe that part of the brain which is verbal. 


But most of the brain is non-verbal. Much of morality is non-verbal. 


Even for those actions we clearly believe are wrong, such as murder and theft, we have difficulty describing with words why they are wrong.  Some say it is because God, who is good, said they were evil acts, which should not be done.  Others go right to the act itself, and say there is an objective standard of goodness, that murder and theft are not a part of. Some may say God may be an expression of this goodness, though others may say He is not necessary.


Often the reason professed is because we wouldn't want them to happen to us. But this makes morality merely a matter of self-interest, and we are not quite comfortable with that answer, either.     


When then we deal with goodness and God,  we imagine we are stuck with choice: Is good good because God says so, or is God good according to some objective standard of goodness? 


The order can only arbitrarily be determined, because they both arise from the unconscious mind.  Looking at it from the point of view of the psychological development of the child, there is seen to be a stage of development where they are identical:  Good is God and God is Good, (at least for monotheists,)  and the question of precedence arises only later as the concepts become separate in the developing child's mind.


It seems that at this stage belief could go either way.  But what is this process?  It is a decision in the child's mind, that one is defined in terms of the other.  Usually, for this is what is usually taught, and indeed what is easier to teach, good is defined in terms of God.  The question of precedence is a decision in the conscious mind of the child, which is later rendered unconscious, that is, 'forgotten' in the adult.   Since this order of precedence is unconscious, this is assumed to be natural.


Because the equality of 'God equals good' is unstable in the verbal mind, (is, in English anyway, implying something like "is contained in the set of all _____ things" as in "The ball is (contained in the set of all) round (things.)")  the mind, as it becomes more verbally sophisticated, settles on one order or the other.  This releases the tension implied with conceptual equality, since equality implies many more relationships and restrictions than that implied by "is contained in." This tension is released in what might be called either the right handed "good because God says so," or the  left handed "good the (absolute) standard which God upholds."  Good is God, vs God is good. The practical limitation of 'is' is an expression of this tension, not the cause.


So  normal development leads to a less sophisticated sense of moral order than that the child originally had, and this can only be recovered later in life.  This forms a conscious model for the mystic, and the recovery of the unity of the God Consciousness requires a backward movement along the path of development in all dimensions, the psychic un-separation and dis-ordering of the separations and orderings of idea formation that constitute normal development.    In the child's mind, only one path is taken, and the other path must be brought to contemplation to recover the symmetry.  In the moral case, the ideas of Good and God are separated and ordered, one above the other.  Indeed, the psychological ordering of these concepts, and other concepts which were originally degenerate, whichever combinations are chosen, become a barrier to higher consciousness.  


This actual equality becomes apparent because neither ordering bears close scrutiny,  The arbitrary God is nevertheless constrained by requirements of reality. The arbitrary God, (and He is arbitrary) cannot make arbitrary evil a virtue, because in a very real absolute sense, it is not.  It is incompatible with a stable society.   The subservient to good God has options due to 'necessity,' and can also deal mercy and justice arbitrarily, so is not so constrained as He first appears.


So words conveniently describe the result of this release, but not the original state.  (Think of it like this: Is good alive, or is God inanimate?  But then, we have the living word, the word made flesh, etc.)  In fact, it is only with difficulty and practice that the idea of the equality of God and good can be maintained in the mind at all, since sensible descriptions, using words, imply one relationship or the other. If one does not choose one ordering or the other, the mind tends instead toward a dualism where under some conditions one description applies, while under different conditions the other description applies.


Equality is difficult, because the concepts are not identical types in the mind.  Note the  conceptual splitting:  One part becomes person, the other object.  In the original state these were conflated.  That is, to the very young child, inanimate objects were perceived as alive, and persons, and the differentiation as the child ages parallels and confirms the separation and ordering of the concepts.


This splitting is modeled on the original noun/verb (object/action) splitting, which comes earlier.  In the undeveloped mind these were originally fused. This is not in the sense of being mixed, but rather being in one higher undifferentiated state which, with more experience, breaks in two: One, noun, 'above' the other, verb.  Indeed, the general process is one of successive symmetry breaking, as each concept, or category, is broken into sub-categories, as a result of either  internal pressure, or external tension. Verbal development both drives and is driven by this maturing.


 We described the tension involved in the equality, and the two orderings of the concepts of good and God that result.  Since we are limited to words, let us describe in more detail the different systems of belief, the consequences of each ordering.   On the right, where good is defined by God, we have whatever God does is good, and whatever He says is good, is good.  God is the final arbiter.  He thus has license to be completely arbitrary, and virtuous behavior is derived from that arbitrary system of good and evil that God has established. That is, good and evil, in this ordering, are arbitrary, and the earthly and heavenly system of reward and punishment are bent to conform to this.  Stealing and murder are bad not because they are inherently bad, or destructive, but only because God says they are.  Philosophical discussions of good and evil are properly discussions of God's motives. Murder and theft may be virtuous, if God, or rather such authority as represents Him, says so. Thus, if God says: "Kill this one," or "Take from that one," is good, then the authoritarian individual has not only license, but duty to act.   


 Contrast this with the left hand view, that there is some absolute standard of good and evil, "out there," to which God, by definition of being good, conforms.  Stealing and murder are inherently bad, and the rewards and punishments of heaven and earth reflect this.  They are in a sense automatic.  God is law giver, but not law maker. Thus, God would not say "Kill this one," or "Take from that one," except out of necessity, for these acts are intrinsically evil. They cannot  be made virtuous, but only necessary. One cannot act out of retribution, but only out of prevention of further depredation.    


In their social and psychological consequences of these two orderings are not equivalent.


One social consequence of the authoritarian ordering is seen in the death penalty. Those states where the people see good as defined by God tend to see execution as virtuous, and thus tend to do it more frequently, and with greater enthusiasm than states where there is a greater tendency to see good as defining God, where killing, even of the evil, is always seen as an evil.  We also see a greater tendency to severity of punishment of law in authoritarian states. There is also a greater acceptance of the order of things.


But remember, these are all justified by projections of the self, which is God.  The authoritarian God is thus, in a sense, more liberating, since He makes a virtue of the self's expressions of, (that is, His expressions of,)  negative emotions, where the authoritative God, even under the 'proper' circumstances, only grudgingly grants permission, to the self, for these to be acted upon.  The authoritative individual is thus more restrained, even to the point of repression of these negative emotions themselves, since any action on them tends more to be frustrated.      

12:09 am est

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Does Humanity Have a Future?

Does humanity have a future?  This in the sense of the future being other than more of the past.

Over at The Foundational Questions Institute  (http://www.fQxi.org)  they are concluding an essay contest.  The subject of the essay is: "How should humanity steer the future?"

 They seem  to assume the answer to an even  more fundamental question, one  which has not yet been settled:  Should humanity steer the future?  Or perhaps even more fundamentally:  Can humanity steer its future? 

Those who think that humanity cannot steer its future subscribe to one or another version of the basic  idea that humanity is too stupid to manage itself.  One version of this is the idea that society is just too complicated to be governed.  And one version of this is that this will always be the case, since society is made up of complicated individuals, and so will always be even more complicated; too complicated to manage. 

However, this is not necessarily the case. Physics studies things with many interacting parts, whose total behavior can nevertheless be summed up in a few, relatively simple equations.  And many systems with complicated parts are easy to manage.  indeed, this is one of the goals of modern industry, to create things of great complexity which are nevertheless 'easy to use,'  easy to control.   

Also, the past shows that societies can, indeed be marshaled to accomplish great things outside of themselves.   Unfortunately, most often these great accomplishments  have been victories in conflicts-  wars against other societies, whose own great accomplishments were to marshal their resources to war. 

Of course, these are just individual societies, and not the whole globe of societies, which is clearly a bigger ball of wax, and one whose behavior is almost certainly not merely the sum of its parts.  So it won't be easy.

Then there are many of those who believe mankind should not steer its future.  Often, these 'put their faith in God.'  God will provide mankind, those 'chosen' who survive, anyway,  a paradise in the future.  This assumes first that God exists, and second, that God does not expect much from humanity. Did God make mankind too stupid to manage his society, or his world?  Since man is also presumed to be His highest creation, this would seem to be a terrible disappointment to God.  One might believe instead that it was a hope of God that mankind could indeed manage his society.  In particular, God must hope mankind can manage his appetite and the resources of the planet:  That man can indeed be the 'good steward.'  Or will God reward those who helped screw up this planet with their unrestrained appetite, giving them a new, virgin one to screw  up?  Will He? So a third assumption  is that God's grace will descend on the sinner, and one who by the way refuses to repent, and lift him up to paradise, to be steward  (or wined and dined?) where before he had failed. 

Perhaps  managing this world is humanity's test, to see if it deserves a new planet.  And what a perfect test it would be.  The results of the test would be the reward.   If mankind succeeded, and managed to preserve the planet, to indeed create a paradise on earth, that is what he would get.  If, on the other hand, he failed, and created a hell on earth,  then that is what he would get.  And whatever world in between, depending on his grade.  A so-so world would always be possible.  Maybe likely.  So consider, what other test should there be, to determine just what kind of 'New Earth' humanity should receive?

In fact, an un-steered humanity's path is predictable.  Indeed, its social evolution has been recently predicted, as can its economic path.  Both paths are downhill:  They are, in fact, the paths of maximum entropy, a decline to states where nothing useful can be extracted.  For humanity, this means a state where nothing useful can be done, including perhaps even maintaining itself.

Now it is uncertain that even with the application of intellect, any system can escape the bounds of entropy.  But it is certain, without the application and mind and hand, entropy will triumph, and the world will evolve into the worst of all possible worlds.

Those who promote the idea of stupid humanity nevertheless see themselves as clever.  They see themselves climbing to the top of the dung heap humanity will become.  Indeed, it is a dung heap they would help to create, with their unrestrained appetite, and its concomitant unrestrained defecation.

Mankind must learn to put more into the earth than it takes out. The real problem is that each individual must learn to do so.  And as both population and inequality increase, this will become more difficult.  As population increases, the total burden of humanity on the earth will increase.  As inequality increases, the number of desperately poor, who see no future beyond today, who are prepared to sacrifice that tomorrow for today, will increase.  And at the other end, there are those who live large, who casually squander earth's limited resources to meet their own perverse needs.  And all in between, are those who take more than they give, expecting there will always be  more.  Because in their experience, there always has been more.  But this is increasingly no longer the case.  More and more, resources are depleted, and insufficient effort is taken to conserve, to maintain and replenish them. 

Can? Should? The fact is, humanity is steering its future.  It cannot help but do it, even if it is to make the choice to pretend  to avoid all responsibility for its choices.  But humanity cannot avoid this responsibility.  It is responsible.  But will it acknowledge this responsibility, or will it deny it, and so be compelled to take responsibility for its failure.

10:00 pm est

Monday, March 31, 2014

The Web of Society and Mind Part III

We review what we have covered previously:

The social  web is defective, indeed has always been defective, since it is created by, and maintained by, and for, premature mature individuals. Each society has its peculiar defects, and inflicts its peculiar deformations on its members.  Each society requires on the part of all, or at least most of, its members an effort to maintain it, thus reducing the availability of time and energy necessary for the individual to pursue and develop a more mature self, that is, to increase the weight of his internal nodes. Some societies require greater effort to maintain themselves, and are thus less tolerant of individuals reducing or being able to reduce their effort to maintain society, a reduction of effort which may be necessary if the individual is to have available the effort required to mature.


Because they are defective, societies (Or perhaps one should say civilizations.  Primitive societies, which have reached an equilibrium with their environment, have tended to at least a sort of stability.) are generally not stable.  The arc of a civilization’s history starts with growth, continues through a period of stagnation, then enters a period of decline. This arc corresponds to the availability and richness of resources that the civilization is able to exploit in its environment.  The historical trend has been for civilizations to grow when resources are plentiful, to peak and then to decline when they exploit those resources to depletion.


The development of the social web goes through corresponding changes, connectors and nodes first becoming richer and more numerous, when during the early growth of their society they have access to increasing quantities of resources.  After the society peaks, the connectors and nodes become sparser.  As societies devolve, the flow of resources and information flow through fewer and longer circuits which, because they are of increasing length, are increasingly susceptible to disruption and failure.  (Connectors become more and more in series, and less and less in parallel.  For connectors in series in a circuit to work, both have to work. The current flows through one connector after the other.  For connectors in parallel, only one has to work. The current can flow through either connector.  Interestingly, as the mind develops, and its internal connections become sparser, it becomes, in a sense, less reliable.)



In growing societies, the image presented the individual is more attainable by that member, and this fact discourages any of regression, stasis, or the pursuit of maturity. As the energy to society becomes less available, however, that image becomes increasingly unattainable. This is not just due to energy considerations, but also organizational reasons:  The web has already started to become sparser, and the connectors necessary for the web of mind to attain society’s offered image become decreasingly available. This fact is eventually understood by more and more members of that society, especially among the middle and lower classes.  As a consequence they no longer participate in, or even come to actively oppose, the maintenance of that society.    


The paradox here is that at this stage, the society still has the energy available for improvement of the individual, either to the image society presents or to real maturity, but it is still organized in a pattern according to its earlier needs. In today’s society we see this in the problem of high unemployment, coupled with the high costs of education.  There is no need for society to demand of everyone so much labor to support society or themselves, and there is no reason they cannot be allowed the leisure and resources, to improve themselves. Neither is there any point in educating them to attain the material images offered by society, as for many, these are unobtainable anyway, or more properly, increasing their education to attain these goals will not help their chances. (This is a case of the failure of composition.  It is in the interests of each individual to get an education.  But when all do it, there is no net improvement it the position or opportunity of any individual. This is because, at this stage, the wealthy are busy depriving the rest of the society of the resources necessary for growth. Indeed with the high costs of education, the web of debt acquired by each individual puts them is a worse position, both materially and psychologically.) 


Further, the high cost of education is unnecessary, as our society has the resources to supply it to individuals more cheaply, if it dedicated its resources more appropriately.  And the education society provides is inappropriate, as material wealth, beyond the point of reasonable comfort, is mostly irrelevant both to society and to the development of the mature individual. Education should be dedicated to developing the individual’s web of mind, which is its own reward, rather than improving the individual’s ability to contribute to the social web, which is unnecessary and also will not likely be rewarded.  Education dedicated to improving the individual is also one which will benefit society, as the mature individual is equipped to contribute more to society. Of course, the mature individual will seek a society which is more congenial to his desires, and will tend, therefore, to also work to alter that society. 


So what of the web of mind?  We see that societies tend to impose a structure on the mind which does not meet many of its desires.  Indeed, it distorts those desires, to rather meet the needs of society. Uppermost in this is the denial of the divinity of the mental web.  That is, the denial of the fact that it is God.  The mind reacts to this in different ways, which we discussed in: http://www.truthabouttheone.com/2010.06.01_arch.html.  All these defense mechanisms result in either homeostasis or the continued pursuit of the image of mind as presented by society.   These mechanisms are both a cause and a result of the distorted web of mind imposed by society. Barriers to an awakening consciousness, they serve the needs of society, and impose an unconscious structure on the individual from which it is difficult for them to escape. 
7:58 pm est


Link to web log's RSS file

Welcome God!

     For that is who You are.  Whether or not You choose to believe that You are God,
the One God, that of course is your divine prerogative.
     As for the reality, You are God, whether You want to be or not.  So Welcome!

Here You will find some answers to some questions You may have about Your divine nature, and the nature of Your creation.

     If you are
satisfied with your
life, your faith,your
God, you are
commanded not to
 read this.
But of course,
who am I to
 command You?

There is only God.

 God is known by
His works. 

Faith and belief comprise a very important part of our lives. A person's beliefs in many ways define who they are -- how they see themselves, what they want out of life, and more.

On this web site I'll offer a personal account of my own beliefs. I'll describe how my beliefs have changed my life in profound and exciting ways, and how I think they might change the lives of others.

I'll also be sure to provide links to my favorite sites as well as information about organizations that help strengthen or support my beliefs., or provide interesting contrast.
Thanks for visiting. Have a good day!
You are at:  truthabouttheone.com